"No, I call it a republic."
Havent heard Bush ever use that term.
So, by calling it A Republic it makes the Bush-Clinton dictatorship acceptable to you?
Doesnt it strike anyone as odd that the same elite families continually get offered to the people as their only options?
America, where anyone can become President, what a crock.

Havent heard Bush ever use that term.
Don't see why that matters.
So, by calling it Republic it makes the Bush-Clinton dictorship acceptable to you?
Even if one person was president for 32 years, that does not make it a dictatorship.

Anyone but a Bush or a Clinton

The U.S. needs a leader in 2008 who doesn't inherit the office because of a last name.
James Burkee
LA Times
Monday, January 22, 2007
HAVING REFUSED a third term as president, George Washington offered the nation a farewell address in 1796, urging Americans to cherish the Union and to avoid the "baneful effects" of political partisanship. Successors such as Thomas Jefferson warned against the formation of an "unnatural" aristocracy of men who inherited great fortunes and political office.
Both of these warnings have been overlooked in the debate over Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2008 presidential run. But if she secures the Democratic nomination, wins and serves two terms, by 2017 the United States will have been governed by either a Bush or a Clinton for 28 years. That's three decades governed not just by the same two families but much of the same supporting staff. As Dick Cheney is a name familiar to both Bush presidencies (as George H.W. Bush's secretary of Defense and his son's vice president), so too may a Hillary Clinton presidency resuscitate familiar names such as Harold Ickes, Paul Begala and James Carville.
And it might not end there. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, encouraged by Republican leaders and the current president (who said, "I would like to see Jeb run at some point"), has not ruled out a White House bid or a vice presidential slot on the ticket in 2012 or 2016.
If Washington's caustic, partisan atmosphere is to change, the era of Bushes and Clintons needs to end in 2008.
Three times in American history have close relatives of former presidents won the office. John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson in 1824 but won in the electoral college amid charges of a "corrupt bargain." Benjamin Harrison, grandson of William Henry Harrison, lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland in 1888 and also suffered as a "minority president" and mere figurehead. George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore in 2000.
Recent polls suggest that a significant body of Americans, perhaps 40%, will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances -- so it is unlikely that she could enter the Oval Office with a strong electoral mandate. The ironic upshot is that such a Hillary Clinton presidency -- weakened by low approval and beset by partisan sniping -- would mirror George W. Bush's presidency.
That the Bush's administration has been consumed by political partisanship comes as no surprise to students of history. From the time of John Quincy Adams -- whose term in office marked the end of the Era of Good Feelings -- the children, grandchildren and spouses of presidents engender exceptional hostility when they seek office themselves. For all their personal capacities, the latter Adams, Harrison and Bush -- like Hillary Clinton -- inherited their claims to the presidency. George W. Bush would not be president today were his name not George Bush, nor Hillary a senator from New York absent the Clinton name. This nation's traditional commitment to meritocracy inclines many to reject these "unnatural" aristocrats, who never garner widespread popularity.
Minority and bare-majority presidents are weak leaders because nothing undergirds presidential power like an election mandate. The strongest post-World War II presidents -- Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan -- were also its most popular. (Eisenhower and Johnson won at least 55% of the vote; Reagan polled just over 50% in 1980 with independent John Anderson in the race, then 59% in 1984.) Presidencies enveloped by partisanship -- Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton -- were made of men who won office on the barest of majorities or pluralities (Truman won 49.6% of the popular vote in 1948; Carter won 50.1% in 1976; Clinton won 43% and 50% in 1992 and 1996).
Pundits compare 2006 to the late Nixon years, with a country disillusioned by war and a deep distrust of its political leadership. In one of his last interviews, former President Ford lamented the "extreme partisanship that exists in the nation's capital today," suggesting that partisanship is even worse than in the post-Watergate era he inherited.
The nation needs today, as it got in Ford then, a president respected by both Republicans and Democrats who can restore trust in politics. It needs new faces and new ideas if it is to confront advancing crises of war, debt and entitlement reform. And it needs a president who can assume office in 2009 swimming in the political capital that only a mandate can bring. The nation needs a candidate who can win 55% or more.
And that will not happen with a Bush or Clinton on the ballot.

"Progressives" Whine About Hillary Bashing

Once again boiling it down to arguments about gender and the false left-right paradigm
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, January 22, 2007
The announcement that Hillary Clinton is to run for President has rightfully worried many into debating the problems of political dynasties in America. Commentators have pointed out that should Hillary be elected it would mean America being under the control of either a Bush or a Clinton for a total of at least 32 years.
Some "progressives" out there, however, seem to believe that such a move would be...well, progressive.
In response to an LA Times opinion piece entitled Anyone but a Bush or a Clinton, Lefty website, the Daily Kos today hit back with a Sacchariney blurb about how it is "unfair" to suggest the people should not vote for Hillary because her last name is Clinton.
It goes on:
Hillary Clinton was on her own a capable, high-powered lawyer with nearly unlimited potential. She chose to partner herself with her husband, and worked with him to raise his profile and possibilities. Would those "she wouldn't be senator" folks be as comfortable if this was turned on its head: Bill Clinton would never have been president without a wife named Hillary. Would someone else have been so competent and supportive in fighting back against the scandals that plagued Bill's career long before he reached the White House? Would someone else have made the connections, raised the money, and been as effective in forging the coalitions that brought Bill up the political ladder?
Once again the crux of the issue is being woefully missed by the "progressives" who seem to become completely detached from any practical debate when the possibility of having a Democrat in office is raised, especially if that Democrat is a woman.
Yes, the Daily Kos is right, Hillary was complicit in everything Bill Clinton did to grease his way up the ladder, and that is just one reason why she shouldn't become President.
The piece then goes on to make a bizarre reference to Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of 2004 candidate John Edwards, and suggests he would never have run if it were not for her support for her man, thus revealing itself as a thinly veiled "Hillary's critics are just sexists" rant. The fact that it was reported that Edwards was picked by the elites in the Bilderberg group, seems to matter not.
If the Daily Kos really wants to be "progressive" it should stop continuously raising the gender issue and telling everyone that women are less powerful than men. Anyone in the right mind knows that some of the most powerful people on this planet are women.
One commenter throws in the opinion the Kos was searching to shape further down the page:
...It's sexist and whether she is your candidate or not, it sounds moronic to pretend she would not have been a senator if she had not married Bill Clinton. Indeed she may have gone further faster without him.
Indeed a cursory look at more comments from the piece shows just how a rational debate about the domination of the "chosen few" in politics can veer off course into a wildly irrelevant, sexism, left vs right or even rich vs poor argument:
... I think this posturing is a result of years of rightwing radio and TV assault on the Clintons. People are prepared to not vote Dem if she wins? This reminds of the same bullshit that was happening with Nader before the 2000 election. It's the same tired right wing "Clinton fatigue" & "everyone hates the Clintons" garbage.
Hillary is financed by and parties with the "rightwing" media
...This has been paraded out ad nauseam for months now, and is a comment in almost every diary that has anything to do with Hillary.
Its wrong.
Just because there were two GOP Presidents in the past two decades who are from the same family is no reason to "decide" upfront that a Democratic candidate is not worthy of the office because she is related to a past President.
The Bushes and the Clintons are peas from the same pod
...that's just a ridiculous comparison. Bill Clinton came from a poor (maybe not dirt poor but compared to the Bush's, poor for sure!) family and worked hard for everything he achieved. He knows what it's like to be middle-class, working-class. Nothing guaranteed him the presidency except his own hard-work and political talent. And odds are, he would not have become president were it not for Hillary. I would also suggest that it is very likely that Hillary would have been able to run and win for Senate if she were just Hillary Rodham.

Clinton and the Bushes personally worked together to profit from massive drug smuggling operations through Mena, while Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. His "hard work" consisted of proving to the elite that he could lick boots and roll over as good as anyone else. This is not about rich vs poor and any notion that Bill Clinton represents the working classes is laughable. He passed virtually all the Republican globalist agenda in the early nineties signing onto NAFTA and the WTO.
What has Clinton ever done for the poorer people of America? He signed the welfare reform Personal Responsibility Act, which forced millions of working class people off welfare. Not so bad in itself, but when you consider that the jobs available to them were purely extremely low wage and slave labor work, it becomes a different matter. It was EARLY into Clinton's second term in office that the manufacturing jobs decline started. Manufacturing employment alone has fallen 3.3 million (19 percent) from its March 1998 peak under Clinton. This trend is simply continuing under Bush as more and more jobs are being exported.
...I reject the idea that two Clinton presidencies make a monarchy and I severely reject ANY comparison of Hillary to G-Dub.
Hilary voted for the war in Iraq
Hillary voted for the renewal of the PATRIOT ACT
Hillary has publicly voiced support for warrantless spying
Hillary has publicly voiced support for torture policies
...Although she can be seen as "friendly" to big business, she is not a corporatist and does not have a record of favoring the wealthy over the working person. That is simply not her record in the Senate.
Hillary is the ultimate elitist and represents the Democrats supposed base, the poor and downtrodden, about as much as Lindsay Lohan represents grace and dignity. She was sure to inform the likes of David Rockefeller and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands as to her presidential aspirations during her visit to last year's Bilderberg conference in Ottawa Canada.
...I suspect Hillary is why you want the law [to bar consecutive family members as Presidents]. To bar a scary smart, effective liberal from running for president.
Talk about abuse of power.
And it makes no sense, though the republicans would love you for it. Also anti-american...in the america where we're valued for our individuality and have the (theoretical) freedom to run for office as we wish to. Barring anyone from trying to gain public office based on arbitrary characteristics is patenly offensive.
How is it valuing individuality to have the same two families in office for three decades? Freedom can never be "theoretical" as this "progressive" states.
These two families are desperate attention loving power mad elitists and want to retain control of their respective political parties. They are using each other to 'soften' their disapproval in the opposite party. We have two simultaneous dynasties - the Bushes and the Clintons. The Bushes are the hand of the Republican arm and the Clintons the hand of the Democratic arm. The body is of course controlled by one mind that outranks them all, the corporate fascist elite.
It is time to stop missing the point of this debate. Though we are hardly likely to see a rational debate about Hillary from supposedly "anti-war" websites such as the Daily Kos, Crooks and Liars and Raw Story, who are all now running Hillary ads, paid for by her campaign.
The Clintons and the Bushes (or the Bushtons as I shall call them from now on) are comparable to the Lucchese and Genovese families: they have their little spats, but at the end of the day they eat their gnocchi from the same table. The Democans and the Republicrats are the left and right hands of a single body. The mind of this body is intent on bare handedly tearing apart freedom and ripping to shreds the constitutional form of governance that was created to bring down this elitist rabble.

"Don't see why that matters. "
Because he constantly refers to your system as a democracy.
But you are correct, it shouldnt affect what you like to call it, you can call it whatever you like. However your country has not been a 'republic' for over a century.

Bush is Skull & Bones. Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar which is a part of the same secret network.
Cecil Rhodes was big into the One World Govt concept and set out to train young men and place them into political positions all over the world. To further the NWO agenda.

"Successors such as Thomas Jefferson warned against the formation of an "unnatural" aristocracy of men who inherited great fortunes and political office."
thats pretty funny concidering Jefferson beat adams by the worst smear campaigne in history - he paid a guy to write libelus(sp?) shit (which spurred the sedition act as well as another i cant recall).
jefferson/adams was the first partisan race

Reply Post

“This is the official website of the Mixed Martial Arts llc. Commercial
reproduction, distribution or transmission of any part or parts of this website
or any information contained therein by any means whatsoever without the prior
written permission is not permitted.”